Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Future of Compiz In Question

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Future of Compiz In Question

    Phoronix: The Future of Compiz In Question

    Rather than announcing a road-map for 2009 or sharing all of the accomplishments this year that were made within the Compiz development community, Kristian Lyngstol has shared some grave concerns for this project that brought "desktop bling" to Linux. Kristian has outlined a few areas that that he believes need to be addressed otherwise it could mean the death of Compiz...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=Njk2Mg

  • #2
    Maybe the thing Compiz needs is a quality standard for merging code, like that for the Linux kernel. If the code is not documented, looks ugly, changes too many things at once, etc, then reject it. This has worked well for the Kernel.

    Comment


    • #3
      Compiz only need to disappear

      Compiz was a great experiment about desktop effects, but it has never been stable, well integrated in desktops, especially for KDE or easy to configure. However, the benefits of its existence was to show that the Linux desktop could do what others (Windwos and even MacOS X) couldn't. Futhermore, thanks to Compiz, graphics drivers have much improved in compositing support.
      Now it's time to retire and invest in other projects like KWin which is (especially in KDE 4.2) all the same powerful, stable, fast, easy to configure and very well integrated in the desktop (link with energy profiles for example). And also, it works without compositing enabled or with 2D acceleration.
      Farewell Compiz !
      Last edited by makosol; 12-31-2008, 09:54 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        I think that compiz has no future. Compiz had to be just a demo of how can linux desktop look like, now it's on windows managers to do this job. There is no more need of Compiz anymore.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by RealNC View Post
          Maybe the thing Compiz needs is a quality standard for merging code, like that for the Linux kernel. If the code is not documented, looks ugly, changes too many things at once, etc, then reject it. This has worked well for the Kernel.
          If you want things done like in the Linux kernel then Compiz++ is out of the question ;-)
          http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.v...43/focus=57918

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Schmaker View Post
            I think that compiz has no future. Compiz had to be just a demo of how can linux desktop look like, now it's on windows managers to do this job. There is no more need of Compiz anymore.
            Right, its on window managers to do the job, but now many are doing it? Just 1, KDE. I don't see Gnome or XFce doing it...so I'll still use Compiz as I am an xfce user.

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm not a big fan/user of desktop effects, but I know it draws many users to Linux and has forced improvement in the major video drivers. I wonder how much of Compiz's stagnation is because of frustration with the X.org model. Perhaps devs see it as a "dead end" to keep working on Compiz until a more flexible X server (i.e. Wayland) is in place.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by eric.frederich View Post
                Right, its on window managers to do the job, but now many are doing it? Just 1, KDE. I don't see Gnome or XFce doing it...so I'll still use Compiz as I am an xfce user.
                xfwm already has a composition manager. Metacity is the only one out, but I think there are plans for one in the future. And yes, I also think that ultimately Compiz will give way to the default window managers as they start to integrate composition effects on their own. I just don't see anything Compiz can offer that can't be done on any of the traditional window managers.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I use compiz-fusion all the time, so I rather don't see the project die

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It seems like there is no empathy for Compiz plight what so ever.. wow.. well I for one enjoy using it and would rather it take a stable direction then just leave it in the wind. It makes using Linux fun or isn't that allowed? After reading the Compiz C++ thread from its developer it seems like the way to go. Saying other window managers can do it (if they even want to) isn't very reassuring. I've converted 5 friends to Linux and I can attest Compiz helped alot. If for only that reason it should be at least be maintained until a true replacement is developed.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      If people only want the cube, 3ddesk existed before compiz and should still work. It could also spin the desktops in other configs than a cube too

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Compiz is useful to a lot of people. With KDE 4 it got competition of course, so less people will be using it from now on and its devs might feel like users are abandoning it. If they can manage to shift the current nature of Compiz - an experimental playground for effects with much overkill - into a stable, functional, well behaving and well integrated window manager, then I'm sure Compiz will have a long healthy life.

                        If the current state of Compiz doesn't change however, then I guess interest will continue dropping and lead to the project's death. Compiz needs someone to work on the boring stuff to achieve the aforementioned stuff. Coding effects and optimizing them sure is interesting. Coding the integration parts along with testing and debugging is not, but someone has to do it, or else :P

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Melcar View Post
                          xfwm already has a composition manager. Metacity is the only one out, but I think there are plans for one in the future. [...]
                          Metacity does have a compositing manager, it was added in 2.22.

                          It's "only" xrender based, similar to xfwm if I'm not mistaken. There are however ongoing experiments to create a gl-based compositor using Clutter and Metacity, usually refered to as "Mutter". If this will be merged into Metacity proper, or only used in Gnome-Shell I don't know.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I am currently using the metacity compositor (it isn't enabled by default, so it takes a setting in gconf to turn it on). I vastly prefer it to compiz!

                            Honestly, I think the problem with compiz is that it was a tech demo with usablity and user-interface, let alone well-documented code, as an afterthought. An application can get away with that for a time, as people marvel at the new technology, but ultimately it becomes clear that the application, while impressive, lacks elegence and is gaudy and impractical in its design.

                            I think compiz falls into this category, and the technology-centered mentallity is something they will have to combat to remain relevant. Fancy effects do not a good window manager make, ask Vista users. Compiz needs to make performance, stablity, and especially ease-of-use primary goals and relegate the technical flourishes to the status of icing-on-the-cake. Their history and philosophy so far, however, do them no great credit to that end. I think it might even be a good idea to rename the project to reflect the change in goals, for it to be more user-centric.
                            Last edited by TechMage89; 12-31-2008, 11:03 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              What I find disturbing about the whole thing is that a window manager seems to get more attention then actual applications do. Eyecandy does nothing when it comes to making up for the lack of application development or actual functionality. Yes there is a lot of applications out there for linux but very few that actually are full featured or even remotely complete. Eyecandy may draw the n00bs in, but you have to have the apps to have them stay.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X